> > In conclusion, killing doesn't solve problems. At most it controls them, which is not the same. This is precisely *why* we all say that it should only be the last resort.
> >
> > jul"Oh no! Look at the mess I've got myself into again!"ian
>
> This is semantical nonsense that is still wrong. Let me give you a hypothetical situation: Evilguy has five people hostage. The problem in this situation is that these people are being held hostages, and may be killed. I shoot Evilguy through the head, killing him. Guess what? The problem is solved.
>


The short-term problem is solved. To use the same terms as jon in his answers to Etienne, the tactical problem has been solved, but the underlying strategic problem remains, and will continue to cause tactical problems in the future. In my book, nothing has been truly solved. You may call that semantics, but I don't know how to say it otherwise.


> What you seem to be arguing is that violence is too often applied after the fact. But if we can kill someone who is currently causing problems, those problems are solved. To me, the logical conclusion isn't to avoid violence altogether, it's just to be more swift in its application.
>
> Stephen


I should emphasize that I'm not arguing against ALL VIOLENCE EVAR: It's only human to get yourself into a mess where your best course of action is to fight.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe that the problems, which historically have been rightly and/or successfuly adressed by going to war, could have been avoided entirely with foresight. While we of course have the benefit of hindsight in these cases, I don't think that the current conflict has come as a surprise to anyone.

julian